RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill”

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill”

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill”

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/15/2009 8:17:33 PM

Brain

Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline

They need to cut Joe Lieberman's political cahonies off too; and Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu and Bill Nelson and anybody else that doesn't get with the program.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if Nelson doesn't fall into line.

How low can you go? It's only our Strategic Air Command base after all.

(in reply to subrob1967)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/15/2009 8:34:10 PM

cuckoldmepls

Posts: 855
Joined: 11/29/2007
Status: offline

I think you need a wake up call yourself. Their public option is unconstitutional and lawsuits are being prepared right now as you read this. The 10th amendment to the Constitution specifically says...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has authority over our healthcare system? The answer is it doesn't. That means it falls under State jurisdiction.
Why do you think we are $10 trillion in debt. It's very simple. The feds have overstepped their authority and created hundreds of programs that are not constitutional. Even the national park system is unconstitutional. Anything that is not covered under the interstate commerce clause or specifically mentioned in the constitution is unconstitutional. The reason the public option is not covered under the ICC is because it's a local person walking into their local hospital. You can't create a program that is unconstitutional to create in the first place, then claim it falls under the ICC after you created it.

If they are smart, they will allow people below the poverty line to apply for medicaid. The rest are responsible for their own healthcare. Technically medicaid is unconstitutional as well but I don't think anyone wants to see social security, medicare, and medicaid vanish. No one wants to pay their parent's bills or change their diapers.

http://babelishere.webs.com/health.html

(in reply to Brain)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/15/2009 8:41:54 PM

DarkSteven

Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Where does this leave it?

Is it still the Republican's fault that with SIXTY Senators the Democrats cannot pass a health care bill?

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/howard-dean-kill-the-senate-bill/

I don't understand this attitude. It's as though Obama and the Dems win f a bill gets passed and lose if it doesn't. I consider having a bad bill passed to be a loss for everyone.

Bush claimed credit for passing bills that I thought were awful, and I don't see the health care bill as being so good either.

I have held all along that the current bill as proposed is a massive mistake. The correct approach is to determine WHY health care costs are high, and then reduce them. The current thinking is to accept the current high costs, and the only issue is who will pay for those high costs, and who will be covered. If the government becomes a payer, that will lock in payment of the current high costs.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/15/2009 8:49:37 PM

InvisibleBlack

Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I have held all along that the current bill as proposed is a massive mistake. The correct approach is to determine WHY health care costs are high, and then reduce them. The current thinking is to accept the current high costs, and the only issue is who will pay for those high costs, and who will be covered. If the government becomes a payer, that will lock in payment of the current high costs.

I agree with you. I think that months ago the proper thing to do was just admit that the original intent of the bill had been mangled in the political process and just say right out that what was being fought over and toyed within both houses was just a mistake and the proper course was to scrap it and start over.

The problem is, after you've said that we have a "healthcare crisis" and an "emergency" and thrown all your weight behind passing such a bill, it's kind of a tough deal to back out of it. Politics uber alles.

_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/15/2009 9:01:05 PM

InvisibleBlack

Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain
Everything is the Republicans' fault because they are uncooperative and disagree about everything. They are only interested in helping the rich get richer. They are only interested in protecting corporations and protecting the wealthy. Republicans do not care about the middle class or the poor. Most Republicans worship money more than God. I do not like the Republican party and I hope it becomes extinct in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain
...the uncooperative and corrupt Democrats, must be purged forever from politics: Joe Lieberman-Connecticut, Blanche Lincoln-Arkansas, Ben Nelson-Nebraska, Mary Landrieu-Louisiana, Bill Nelson-Florida and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from the state of Maine - they also need to be purged from the political process in order to purify the Northeast.

It's never occurred to you that someone, possibly even just one of the "uncaring" Republicans or the "corrupt" Democrats, could actually be opposing this bill out of justified legal, ethical, moral or economic concerns? That, even if their beliefs are mistaken or not fully informed, they could be honest, heartfelt and altruistic?

What you seem to be putting forward is that any elected official who agrees with you is ethical, honest, above board and intelligent and that any politician who disagrees with your position is a vile, corrupt, self-serving malcontent who must "purged from the political process". Is agreement with you the sole arbiter of who is ethically "pure" and who is corrupt and needs to be "purified"?

Take a step back for a minute and think about what you've been saying.

_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to Brain)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/16/2009 11:26:14 AM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Usually I try to be humble but I have to give Spinner and myself a little credit; I think the two of us are little too politically sophisticated to fall for these Republican snow jobs.

Funniest post of the year.

(in reply to Brain)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/17/2009 3:26:25 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Win some (the insurance companies, the repbulicans) lose some (the American people)

Hold on to that hope despite the polls, despite the Democratic leadership fearing the repercussions of the Senators leaving without passing the Bill and going home to their disenfranchised constituents.

I hope you are correct though and more will vote out each and every incumbent. Hey - it's the season for hope!

You of course mean Democratic incumbents, despite your well rehearsed neutrality.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/17/2009 3:35:20 AM

housesub4you

Posts: 1879
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline

Social Security was also tried in court and was Medicare. In fact if you look back you will see the very same arguments being used now that where used then. Same old same old, when you are elected to office and you decide to look out for corporate America you get what we keep re-electing

I think it's interesting or stupid (choose one) that the Dems still think Lieberman will support them when just the other day he stated he is considering running with the GOP next election

(in reply to cuckoldmepls)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/17/2009 7:17:59 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Win some (the insurance companies, the republicans) lose some (the American people)

Hold on to that hope despite the polls, despite the Democratic leadership fearing the repercussions of the Senators leaving without passing the Bill and going home to their disenfranchised constituents.

I hope you are correct though and more will vote out each and every incumbent. Hey - it's the season for hope!

You of course mean Democratic incumbents, despite your well rehearsed neutrality.

rml,
Where did I claim I was neutral? I'm anti anyone on the special interest payroll. By definition that means everyone currently occupying an elected office.

However, unlike you and others, I'm just not faithful to the party despite the results they produce and their common paymasters - special interests.

YOU rml, are more 'republican' than I am, exhibited by your support for republican initiatives. Obama's 'stimulus' - followed Bush's republican plan. His ongoing War in Iran - followed Bush's republican plan. His ongoing, and escalation of the occupation of Afghanistan, is a escalation of what Bush, a republican started. The economy's downfall was caused by Bush and republican spending; Obama is doing his best to spend more, but its not change or a different policy. The only thing different is the names of the special interest groups being rewarded, sharing the common denominator with the republican party - they contributed to the political campaigns.

You, rml, may be against a label, but your support of the policies now that you once criticized and which return the same bottom line; point to a position in support of republican policy. You just don't like the label. I think the results speak for themselves. It's been long enough, if not to see some positive result to at minimum see a positive trend. It's not happening.

Congress is in a rush to spend and collect pork for their districts. They have come up with a worthless and economy killing Health-care bill that serves none of the ambitions it was advertised to do. Yet you still support it, because its from the democrats. Well, regardless of the label of its authors - it sucks.

But you go for it, and keep trying to rationalize a difference that, if you could find it, would be as meaningless as it is significant.

Me - I'll vote for anyone not in office, at every election, interim, primary, major, from school board to President. The referendum approach of voting is the only vote anyone has at this point. Fortunately for the status quo people, like you, don't appreciate that fact.

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 12/17/2009 7:21:09 AM >

(in reply to rulemylife)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/17/2009 8:34:02 AM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I have held all along that the current bill as proposed is a massive mistake. The correct approach is to determine WHY health care costs are high, and then reduce them. The current thinking is to accept the current high costs, and the only issue is who will pay for those high costs, and who will be covered. If the government becomes a payer, that will lock in payment of the current high costs.

Wouldn't that involve regulating the insurance industry? I'm sure the conservatives will like that even less than the idea of socialised medicine. Interfering with a profitable business is about as evil as a liberal can get, after all.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/17/2009 8:53:45 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Wouldn't a program requiring ALL businesses to offer and pay for coverage have achieved the same goal but without the bureaucracy and expense of this Bill?

Isn't that exactly why we are being told GM and the the other automakers cannot compete?

Primarily because of the cost of health care benefits that Toyota and Honda do not have.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/17/2009 9:15:42 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: relief

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Wouldn't a program requiring ALL businesses to offer and pay for coverage have achieved the same goal but without the bureaucracy and expense of this Bill?

Isn't that exactly why we are being told GM and the the other automakers cannot compete?

Weren't we also told that the 'bail-out' would "save GM and eliminate plant closings? But that's not the question is it?

quote:

....Primarily because of the cost of health care benefits that Toyota and Honda do not have.

Yes that is ONE of the reasons; retirement benefits being higher on the list. They failed, it's over; the subject at hand was providing a national health plan.

Eliminating the Federal government from the administration process eliminates the creation of a bureaucracy - eliminated by requiring businesses to provide coverage with the Government as a last resort back stop. The cost is distributed to the consumers of the product. If the product can't be made at a competitive price - guess what? The business fails as it should.

As a business you can manage cost considerations and employee expenses. You can't manage government entitlement handouts and the tax revenues they require. It is the major reason there are a lot more 'going out of business' signs being sold instead of 'grand opening'! Why bother when the majority of your efforts go to a government that only rewards failures - GM, AIG to name a couple household name recipients.

Knowing as a business that you must include health care benefits into you cost model is something that can be managed. If GM had a viable product to sell, they would be in a position to renegotiate their union contracts, perhaps bringing that cost down. An elementary suggestion would be to reestablish the retirement benefits to come more in line with current life expectancy actuarial tables as well as many other factors true now - but not considered when the contract was negotiated. However, I'll stand behind my fundamental position - if it couldn't be done and there was no viable product to take to market at a competitive price - GM deserved to FAIL!

(in reply to rulemylife)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/17/2009 9:38:51 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Yes that is ONE of the reasons; retirement benefits being higher on the list. They failed, it's over; the subject at hand was providing a national health plan.

No, the primary reason is Japan has national health insurance that companies like Toyota do not not have to consider when competing against American companies.

Careers | Toyota Companies | TFS BenefitsPension Plan. Fully funded by Toyota; 5 year vesting schedule; Normal retirement age = 62; Early retirement age = 55 with at least 5 years vesting service

quote:

Eliminating the Federal government from the administration process eliminates the creation of a bureaucracy - eliminated by requiring businesses to provide coverage with the Government as a last resort back stop. The cost is distributed to the consumers of the product. If the product can't be made at a competitive price - guess what? The business fails as it should.

Guess what, you have just as much bureaucracy and incompetence from the private sector as you do with government.

In my opinion more, because you really have no accountability, especially with companies that are in effect monopolies.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Profile

Post #: 33

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/17/2009 10:00:03 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

No, the primary reason is Japan has national health insurance that companies like Toyota do not not have to consider when competing against American companies.

Exactly why you make the tariff on those products equal to the benefits provided by their government's policy. I don't need to mirror their version of the solution. It doesn't fit into the balance of how the US economy was set up. However I can create a level platform for domestic industries.

Were I managing the USA, I wouldn't care about irrelevant comparisons. I'd set a path for a goal considering the unique conditions that exist.

The government intervention should not kill the very economy it's suppose to be protecting. However it can, and should, encumber those who have a local advantage from selling their product here to the detriment of US industry and US workers.

However, that must not be part of your philosophy - you just want to increase governments role in your daily life and decision making.

quote:

Guess what, you have just as much bureaucracy and incompetence from the private sector as you do with government.

In my opinion more, because you really have no accountability, especially with companies that are in effect monopolies

You don't have to guess - the reality is I'm NOT forced to pay for it in the private sector. Every penny of fraud, corruption, and mismanagement perpetrated by public employees and bureaucrats comes from taxes. I can quit buying a product. When I have the same option with taxes your comparison is relevant.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Profile

Post #: 34

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/17/2009 10:50:31 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

The government intervention should not kill the very economy it's suppose to be protecting. However it can, and should, encumber those who have a local advantage from selling their product here to the detriment of US industry and US workers.

Agreed.

quote:

However, that must not be part of your philosophy - you just want to increase governments role in your daily life and decision making.

Not agreed.

You seem to want to believe that any government is bad government.

Governments are set up by people, they don't just spontaneously occur, and they are set up for a reason.

To provide for the common good and to pool resources that allow everyone a better standard of living.

quote:

You don't have to guess - the reality is I'm NOT forced to pay for it in the private sector. Every penny of fraud, corruption, and mismanagement perpetrated by public employees and bureaucrats comes from taxes. I can quit buying a product. When I have the same option with taxes your comparison is relevant.

Really?

So you mean you can drop Microsoft at any time?

I guess I won't be hearing from you very much any more.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Profile

Post #: 35

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/17/2009 11:12:06 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

Really?

So you mean you can drop Microsoft at any time?

I guess I won't be hearing from you very much any more.

Microsoft is your response? Funny - beth avoids Microsoft as much as possible (a CA hippie thing) and handles it quite well. But that wasn't he point - I control the purchase. There are many products that can do the job, Apple for instance, that can do the job if I felt the corruption of Microsoft made their pricing came close to the abhorrent cost of bureaucracy.

quote:

Not agreed.
You seem to want to believe that any government is bad government.
Governments are set up by people, they don't just spontaneously occur, and they are set up for a reason.
To provide for the common good and to pool resources that allow everyone a better standard of living.

How could the lack of "any government" put in place and enforce reciprocal and/or level playing field tariffs? You won't find any representation made by me for no government. A government should protect its citizens and provide the opportunity for success. A government shouldn't guarantee it, or even make it easy to achieve success.

There's another thing government should do which I bet you'd agree - enforce and punish to the fullest extent and to the best of their ability people, industries, and institutions that breach the public trust placed in them.

"Common good"? Would that be defined as a good for the majority or, say, a ten percent minority at the expense of the 90%?

(in reply to rulemylife)

Profile

Post #: 36

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/17/2009 11:21:44 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Microsoft is your response? Funny - beth avoids Microsoft as much as possible (a CA hippie thing) and handles it quite well. But that wasn't he point - I control the purchase. There are many products that can do the job, Apple for instance, that can do the job if I felt the corruption of Microsoft made their pricing came close to the abhorrent cost of bureaucracy.

I see, so when you abandon Microsoft you can go to Apple. Then where do you go if Apple pisses you off?

Nope, no monopolies here, plenty of choices.

Well, at least more than one.

quote:

How could the lack of "any government" put in place and enforce reciprocal and/or level playing field tariffs? You won't find any representation made by me for no government. A government should protect its citizens and provide the opportunity for success. A government shouldn't guarantee it, or even make it easy to achieve success.

There's another thing government should do which I bet you'd agree - enforce and punish to the fullest extent and to the best of their ability people, industries, and institutions that breach the public trust placed in them.

"Common good"? Would that be defined as a good for the majority or, say, a ten percent minority at the expense of the 90%?

Who pays for the roads you drive on, the parks and beaches you go to, the fire and police departments that you have the protection of, and countless other things I could name?

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Profile

Post #: 37

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/17/2009 11:45:24 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

I see, so when you abandon Microsoft you can go to Apple. Then where do you go if Apple pisses you off?
Nope, no monopolies here, plenty of choices.

What does "pissed off" have to do with it. Cost, access, value, determines purchase. There is no NEED for Microsoft, or any private vendor. So inclined I don't need a phone, a computer, or a light-bulb. I don't buy it - I'm not participating, and funding, fraud, corruption and greed. Where do I sign up not to participate in those government sanctioned versions perpetrated by bureaucrats?

quote:

Who pays for the roads you drive on, the parks and beaches you go to, the fire and police departments that you have the protection of, and countless other things I could name?

You feel cornered huh?

It's a tired argument that should be put to bed once and for all - where is it represented those items should be trashed?

However, I see the need. ALL entitlements are sacrosanct. ALL pork spending is good. ANY challenge or desire for an efficient and effective government needs to focus on potholes. Tell you what - instead of me sending in my tax money to allocate across the board, send me an itemized proportionate bill, (based upon income or usage - your choice) for road work, fire, street lighting, and even the public education system that I no longer have a need to use; and I'll write a check.

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 12/17/2009 11:46:41 AM >

(in reply to rulemylife)

Profile

Post #: 38

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/17/2009 11:59:48 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

What does "pissed off" have to do with it. Cost, access, value, determines purchase. There is no NEED for Microsoft, or any private vendor. So inclined I don't need a phone, a computer, or a light-bulb. I don't buy it - I'm not participating, and funding, fraud, corruption and greed. Where do I sign up not to participate in those government sanctioned versions perpetrated by bureaucrats?

So let me understand this.

You don't need a computer? Which would make it...........I think..............impossible for us to be having this conversation.

You don't need a phone? Maybe we can resurrect the Pony Express?

But I will agree with you on the light bulbs. I'm going to start buying stock in candle makers.

quote:

You feel cornered huh?

It's a tired argument that should be put to bed once and for all - where is it represented those items should be trashed?

However, I see the need. ALL entitlements are sacrosanct. ALL pork spending is good. ANY challenge or desire for an efficient and effective government needs to focus on potholes. Tell you what - instead of me sending in my tax money to allocate across the board, send me an itemized proportionate bill, (based upon income or usage - your choice) for road work, fire, street lighting, and even the public education system that I no longer have a need to use; and I'll write a check.

Cornered?

Not at all.

If anything it is the opposite with your suggestion that we should all pay privately for public services.

And you are complaining of bureaucracy?

Can you imagine the bureaucratic nightmare that would result with your idea?

< Message edited by rulemylife -- 12/17/2009 12:01:04 PM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Profile

Post #: 39

RE: Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” - 12/17/2009 12:10:44 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

You don't need a computer? Which would make it...........I think..............impossible for us to be having this conversation.

You don't have to oversell the idea; but yes it is NOT a necessity.

quote:

You don't need a computer? Which would make it...........I think..............impossible for us to be having this conversation.
You don't need a phone? Maybe we can resurrect the Pony Express?
But I will agree with you on the light bulbs. I'm going to start buying stock in candle makers.

However, thinking about it, it points to another mindset different between us. Pointed to such a decision, price to high for product, price too high for service; my solution would be to start my own entity to sell it cheaper at the appropriate price to value.

Your position, would be to cry to the government about those 'bad' companies?

GRATEFUL to be so distinguished from the mindset of the government being the first choice of solution, let alone the best.

One of the best cases in point is the subject of the OP. To 'sell' this idea to the people they've disclosed that the current government run portion of health care, Medicaid, as a minimum of $400 Billion in fraud. Of course that will be found and used to fund this new program - run by the same people - to not impact the deficit or raise taxes.

You REALLY believe that? You must if you support this Bill.

So tell me - what epiphany is going to disclose the fraud and while were at it how will the people who work in that current bureaucracy be punished and eliminated from the one being created?

quote:

If anything it is the opposite with your suggestion that we should all pay privately for public services.
And you are complaining of bureaucracy?
Can you imagine the bureaucratic nightmare that would result with your idea?

Nice try - but the response was to you selectively only pointing to those issues. However, the bureaucrats eliminated by switching to that method would make it a zero sum result.

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 12/17/2009 12:21:06 PM >

(in reply to rulemylife)

Profile

Post #: 40